- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:02:06 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > "quoted" parallels "taken" conceptually. or "took", if your mind is implying an agent. In my mind, "quoted" is more like "cited", but then I'm not a native English speaker. We normally consider agents doing quoting than paragraphs. Stian quoted the bible, and so the bible 'was quoted'. "Has this document been quoted anywhere?" The "From" is the spanner in the works, it tries to change the directionality, and I understand the phrase "was quoted from", but when you see it there in the RDF and it's not something as easy as a paragraph and a bible, but a blogpost and a tweet, then you can't really be sure. > And breaking the "wasDerivedFrom" pattern seems like a bad idea as we're trying to finish up with a more consistent model, not less. I agree to not fracture the model. I was just hoping for a small modification to clarify the direction, like "wasQuoteFrom". I think that is more important than if it is still a quote or not. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 08:03:03 UTC